Forget North against South. The battle over a proposed casino in Gettysburg is being drawn up along lines of outsiders versus locals.

The National Commander of the American Legion recently declared the casino proposal "a national disgrace" and went so far as to suggest that soldiers might be buried in unmarked graves on the property.

Current and past commanders of the Gettysburg American Legion Post 202 promptly told the Gettysburg Times that the National Commander "has no idea what he’s talking about."

The local Legion Post has remained neutral on the project. But the yawning divide between national commentary and local opinion is becoming a hallmark of the Gettysburg conflict.

Developers are petitioning state officials to build a "resort casino" on the site of a 40-year-old hotel complex.

Gettysburg is one of four competitors for the last remaining resort casino license from the state, and would house 600 slot machines and 50 table games if approved. The proposed Mason-Dixon Resort & Casino would be a smaller operation than full-size slots parlors, such as the Hollywood Casino at Penn National Race Course.

No question, there are locals opposed to the casino. But the support structure behind the "No Casino" and "Pro Casino" factions is telling.

The "No Casino Gettysburg" group has enlisted the support of several hundred historians, a slew of national preservation groups and more than 7,600 Facebook fans.

But proponents of the casino have the backing of the local township supervisors, county commissioners, the Gettysburg-Adams Chamber of Commerce, more than 80 businesses — including the largest tourism businesses — and a solid majority of local residents in two polls.

And now the casino also has the support of the nation’s oldest Civil War preservation group: the Gettysburg Battlefield Preservation Association.

The association last week declared the casino presented no preservation issues and lent its support to the project.

Brendan Synnamon, the president of the association, acknowledged "the obvious knee-jerk reaction [to a casino proposal] would be to say no." But looking at the reality from a preservation standpoint reveals an entirely different answer.

"In this case, the Eisenhower Conference Center, located well south of the battlefield and which would be converted into the Mason-Dixon Resort, already exists as a commercial facility, and the resort would not go beyond its already existing boundaries," he said. "This is a far different circumstance than taking open, undeveloped space near the battlefield and building all new structures."

"The existing Eisenhower Conference Center has never interfered with nor detracted from the Gettysburg battlefield, and its reuse as the Mason-Dixon Resort likewise will not interfere nor detract from the battlefield," Synnamon said.

Susan Star Paddock, a leader of the "No Casino" faction, promptly responded that "The GBPA is ... tragically out of step with the way most Americans view the Gettysburg battlefield."

Its determination, Paddock said, "contrasts with the stance of every major national and statewide preservation association."

Paddock called the casino an "absurd proposal to convert hallowed ground into an adult-oriented playground."

"Fortunately, the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are not as easily duped, nor are the citizens of the United States," she said.

"There’s a long history of local leaders supporting things that the rest of the country considers strange and inappropriate and later have to be torn down," Paddock said.

Despite the fact that fully one-third of the National Military Park exists because of the Gettysburg Battlefield Preservation Association’s preservation work over the last 50 years, Paddock told the Gettysburg Times that the organization is not a true preservation group.

She later backed off that statement and said the group has "a long and distinguished history of preservation; however, in the last few years they seem to have gone in a direction separate from every other preservation group."

That makes Synnamon shake his head.

"I’m disappointed with the smoke-and-mirrors tactics," he said.

The "No Casino" rhetoric, said Synnamon, "makes it sound like there’s going to be a Ferris wheel on Little Round Top."

"We don’t oppose anybody who has a different opinion," he said. "We’re not qualified to talk about the moral issues. ... There are always going to be pros and cons on the morality issues, but as far as a preservation issue, it’s not."

The land has already been developed, the proposal would simply be a reuse, and none of it is visible from the battlefield, he said.

Synnamon also has discovered that speaking publicly in support of the casino can result in some personal small-town nastiness.

Paddock’s group has suggested the preservation association’s decision is a result of casino developer David LeVan being a customer at a local cigar shop owned by Synnamon’s father.

Synnamon said the decision was a 10-1 vote of the association’s board of directors, and was never at any time solicited by casino advocates.

He added that while LeVan has been a contributor and fundraiser for the association and other preservation projects in the past, that had no bearing on the decision.

Instead, the board simply asked themselves — as he said they do with many projects — "Does this concern us from a preservation standpoint?"

And Synnamon said, the answer was no.

What’s more, given that there are no preservation issues, the prospect of the casino generating more jobs and business is a positive thing, he said.

"A stronger local economy is helpful to the cause of preservation," he said. "Preservation does not exist in a vacuum. Our local preservation work cannot thrive absent a local economy that helps induce and support it."

That’s "simply flimflam," Paddock said.

"We believe from our studies that it is going to cost more jobs than it will provide," she said.

She argues that a casino will alienate heritage tourists and become "a vacuum cleaner sucking money out of our community and sending it to Harrisburg."

Both factions are ramping up in preparation for a Gaming Control Board public hearing on the project Aug. 31.

Gaming Control Board Chairman Gregory Fajt has said he wants a decision on the license by the end of the year.

When the dust has settled, are there prospects for reconciliation in Gettysburg?

Synnamon said he recently met Paddock before the two of them spoke on a news program. He said he asked her if she was willing to work with him when it was all over to direct her followers’ enthusiasm for the battlefield into preservation projects.

Paddock agreed, and later told The Patriot-News, "I’d be happy to work with Brendan on preservation and delighted to see GBPA turn back to its original goal."

Related Stories

Featured Story

Get 'Today's Front Page' in your inbox

This newsletter is sent every morning at 6 a.m. and includes the morning's top stories, a full list of obituaries, links to comics and puzzles and the most recent news, sports and entertainment headlines.

optionalCheck here if you do not want to receive additional email offers and information.See our privacy policy

Thank you for signing up for 'Today's Front Page'

To view and subscribe to any of our other newsletters, please click here.